Letters, June 4

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/06/2022 (937 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Don’t blame the rich

Re: Make rich pay more (Letters, March 3)

Letter writer Harold Shuster would have the rich pay a greater share of subsidized pharmacare, dental care or day care. In his letter, he touts that increasing capital gains taxes, corporate income tax and wealth tax and instituting a surtax on billionaires is the solution.

The high earners already pay the majority of the income tax in Canada. The top one per cent of earners pay almost 40 per cent of tax collected and the top five per cent pay close to 60 per cent of income tax collected by Ottawa. I suppose Shuster realizes that the so-called rich are also able to move or transfer their wealth to tax havens. We don’t want that to happen, as our hospitals and charities would suffer if they left Canada or moved their money.

The total cost of government at all levels has risen in Canada, much higher than inflation over the years, and the burden has become untenable. We cannot afford what we have created.

If we want more societal “goodies” they will have to be funded from within existing budgets, not by causing the flight of capital. Civil service wages and benefits need to be somewhat comparable to the average citizen’s wages and benefits.

The problem is not with the rich not paying their fair share. The problem is that we don’t treat public coffers with respect. Much of that money is frittered away by a proper lack of oversight. It’s not real money, it’s OPM (other people’s money). We need to be better stewards of the public purse.

Peter Kaufmann

Winnipeg

Manage utilities under public eye

Re: Stefanson’s push to reduce Hydro oversight likely fuelled by silence (Opinion, June 1)

Columnist Dan Lett asks why we are not rising up to stop Premier Heather Stefanson’s government from damaging the public oversight of Hydro rates. Perhaps it is because Manitobans have fully drunk the Brian Pallister Kool-Aid?

Conservative ideology has convinced us that public debt is bad, because we fail to understand that wealth is created by debt. For example, quality health care is wealth.

Most folks do not purchase a $60,000 pickup truck with cash. Nor buy a house with cash. It is normal for our standard of living to be supported by large amounts of debt.

Debt makes the world go round, yet the PCs have howled so much about Hydro debt that we foolishly elected the Brian Pallister government twice.

With Crown corporations backstopped by government, it is normal to borrow up to 85 per cent of their asset value. We are at a point where heavy investment in our electric supply is not only justified foresight, but necessary.

Bill 36 is designed to reduce Hydro debt by raising our rates and making privatization possible. Time to stop drinking the PC Kool-Aid.

Gregory Teleglow

Steinbach

In my past career, I worked with Crown utilities, and I saw it takes a regulator to bring outside perspective to their expenditures and rates. But the government and the corporation typically hate that discipline.

Hydro is strangely quiet about the “green” future. The City of Winnipeg, amongst others, is basing their climate plan on the assumption that drivers will switch to electric vehicles, and that building heating will transition to one or other electrical systems. This is a game-changer for Hydro; not only would it stretch their existing generation capacity (and reduce natural gas sales), it would require costly changes to their local distribution and metering systems.

I am guessing Hydro is headed for some big capital expenditures, and therefore big cost increases. Better they be managed in the public eye by the PUB.

Charles Feaver

Winnipeg

If ever there was a time the citizens of Manitoba needed the protection of the Public Utilities Board, it is in this time of record high inflation, which is growing daily.

If the government of the day wants to improve Manitoba Hydro’s debt-to-equity ratio, why does it not just reduce the “water royalty fee” that it takes from Hydro’s revenue bottom line annually?

The government argues PUB hearings are costly to Hydro. Well, not as costly as the Brad Wall report that the government commissioned to tell them what they already knew or could have learned via the PUB.

I support the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition. I further support Dan Lett’s observation that “Bill 36 is potentially more impactful and dangerous than anything proposed in Bill 64,” the so-called Education Modernization Act.

Ted E. Scoles

Winnipeg

I write to express my profound opposition to Bill 36 and the danger it presents in limiting the role of PUB and the inevitable destabilization of Manitoba Hydro.

We have suffered the consequences of botched hospital reorganizations and cutbacks and the handling of the pandemic to date, when left in the hands of this government, and I have grave concerns where their further interference with Manitoba Hydro will lead us. Most likely it will result in unjustified rate increases and a warped justification to pursue privatization of our remaining resource. I say NO to bill 36.

Susan Munroe

Winnipeg

Public good before prejudice

Re: Gender-neutral washrooms create challenges (Opinion, June 29)

We have been watching the debate raging in this publication about gender-neutral washrooms with great interest. It was particularly striking that a letter complaining about men urinating on the floor was in the same edition as an excellent article about combatting stereotypes.

It would appear that some people feel that “all cis men are dangerous pigs” is an immutable truth. We have greater faith in people’s ability to clean up their act, both physically and metaphorically.

Also, if both gendered washrooms have been changed at any venue, surely there’s another one without urinals on the other side. Go there if you are uncomfortable, as you would have before. A quick glance will tell you which is which.

The safety of transgender and gender non-conforming people is surely a higher public good than some people’s prejudices. Let’s all work together to fix the growing pains.

Hadass Eviatar, David Hoult & Shira Hoult

Winnipeg

The issue is not with the safety of gender-neutral bathrooms themselves, as there is no evidence to back up the claim that gender-neutral spaces cause harm. It is about ensuring that all patrons of an establishment can use the restroom — in itself, an integral part of the fundamental human rights to dignity and accessibility.

Cara McCaskill

Winnipeg

My husband suffered from dementia for many years and during that time I accompanied him into what seemed like every men’s washroom in the city. Not once did a man react with anything but understanding to find me in there. I don’t know how things would have gone if I had opted to take my husband into the women’s washroom instead.

Gladys Bellamy

Winnipeg

Humans void with greater urgency, and therefore more frequently, as they age. If you leave your home for longer than two hours after age 65, most individuals require a washroom. If any city wishes to encourage use of their recreational or entertainment options, they must provide much more readily available public washroom facilities.

Chris Jensen

Winnipeg

What about women from cultures that forbid sharing public toilets with male strangers, whether they are tourists or local residents, who effectively then would be barred from using public toilets? How will they be accommodated with “gender neutral” washrooms?

Kirsti Kuuskivi

Winnipeg